Author Topic: Alabamas Judge Roy Moore (Read 3467 times)

loser · « **Reply #30 on:** August 22, 2003, 03:01:46 AM »

Hmm, I wonder how many cases this judge has heard where he convicted someone and sentenced them for adultery, or maybe covetting.

Really though, who cares? If anyone was actually that annoyed by the prescence of the ten commandments during their hearing, they could move for a mis-trial (application of religious beliefs being grounds) and get their case transfered to another court. That is, at least as far as I know.

But I'll admit I dont know very much about the state laws of Alabama.

Eagler · « **Reply #31 on:** August 22, 2003, 06:50:41 AM »

strange - that the laws that he is sworn to uphold are based on the 10 laws he displays - and ppl have a problem with that?

some ppl have to much time on their hands ...

Fatty · « **Reply #32 on:** August 22, 2003, 06:55:08 AM »

It would be amusing to see the accusations of close minded bigot if it was an 'art' piece depicting say, jesus in a scat orgy, and someone wanted it removed.

You would see the sides immediately reversed, yet it should be the same issue.

hblair · « **Reply #33 on:** August 22, 2003, 07:26:27 AM »

fatty, you dork. What would jesus in an orgy have to do with law? You do see that the 10 commandments were law, and they're displayed at a court of law?

Man, us alabamians are soo much smarter than you foreigners.

Snork · « **Reply #34 on:** August 22, 2003, 07:46:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre
By the way, I work in a federally built and maintained building, and keep a bible on my desk in plain view. Should I be required to hide it? Would that not be denying the contribution of my culture to our diverse society? (Waiting for the law suits to hit now)

Keeping a bible on your desk is a matter of your right to practice your religion, and a fair warning to others as to who they're dealing with

I'm sure most of us would have no problem with the Jerdge keeping a 5 ton monolith of the ten commandments on his desk and carrying it home at night to study. Permanently mounting it in the foyer of a government building is quite another thing altogether.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #35 on:** August 22, 2003, 09:35:40 AM »

Nimitz:

I disagree with you about the connotation of "created," and, in any case, you can find many more specific references to God in the foundational documents of our country. Nonetheless, the point of my post was not to argue the merits of the Alabama case in a contextual vacuum; instead, it was to note that, in my opinion, the "Establishment Clause" can be construed to prevent the display of "religious symbols" on public property only by ignoring (or at least squinting at) its plain meaning and the obvious intent of the drafters. In sum, I flatly disagree with your interpretation of the "Establishment clause, in its purist state."

Fatty:

Very nice move. I wondered how long it would be until someone played the "bigot" card. Now if someone will just post and start spouting about someone being a Nazi, homophobe, or some other leftist Scarlet-Letter label, this post will be complete.

- JNOV

Sabre · « **Reply #36 on:** August 22, 2003, 09:43:31 AM »

Can someone, anyone tell me what law (local, state, or federal) Judge Moore broke when he placed that statue in that state-owned building? As I understand it, he had the authority to make changes to the decor. So, what law did he break? And remember, the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch has the authority to make and change laws. The judicial's job is to determine if those laws are "just" according to the state and/or federal constitutions. So, what law is he being fined for violating?

midnight Target · « **Reply #37 on:** August 22, 2003, 10:23:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sabre
Can someone, anyone tell me what law (local, state, or federal) Judge Moore broke when he placed that statue in that state-owned building? As I understand it, he had the authority to make changes to the decor. So, what law did he break? And remember, the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch has the authority to make and change laws. The judicial's job is to determine if those laws are "just" according to the state and/or federal constitutions. So, what law is he being fined for violating?

He violated the "establishment" clause of the 1st amendment, and he may have arguably violated the "free excercise" clause through the possible intimidation of religious practices of those who are not Christian.

Dago · « **Reply #38 on:** August 22, 2003, 11:09:07 AM »

Quote

he had the authority to make changes to the decor.

To say this is a "stretch" is to call Mt Everest a hill.

dago

Dead Man Flying · « **Reply #39 on:** August 22, 2003, 11:20:58 AM »

The ignorance of the First Amendment displayed in this thread borders on astonishing.

And anyone who can't see the tangible difference between a poster with the Ten Commandments mounted on a courtroom wall and a 2.5 ton monolith celebrating it in the court's lobby needs a reality check.

-- Todd/Leviathn

Dago · « **Reply #40 on:** August 22, 2003, 11:27:58 AM »

Quote

Why do people fear christianity?

We don't, but we fear people who wish to force their will and believes on others.

You know, those who cannot understand that there are those who are not Christians, there are those who still believe in the intent of the Founding Fathers, who hold the Constitution and Bill of Rights in high regard.

I don't fear Christianity, but I have seen what happens when religion invades government. I have seen what people will do when someone does not share their "beliefs".

One of the greatest prinicipals of our country is the freedom to worship in the manner and to the God of your own choosing, without government interference. Allowing Christians to impose their ideology and institute their symbols in our government has dangers well beyond the comprehension of many people.

Some of the worst historical footnotes in our countries past involve those who were so sure they were right, think Salem Witch Trials and the McCarthy hearings.

dago

Rude · « **Reply #41 on:** August 22, 2003, 11:36:27 AM »

I think what is most important for our country is that there be no absolutes and that only laws which serve that end should be enacted.

I'm certain the founding fathers intended that this nation be rooted by the belief in one's own personal wisdom and not that of some silly god written of in an old book. Who needs that basis when human history itself shines of mans ability to rise above himself and do what is just.

If we all keep trying and fight the good fight, it won't take much longer for the US to be just like much of the rest of our world and that is what will serve humanity...one big pot full of formless grey soup, all directed by the great wisdom of man himself.

Long live Man and his unfailing wisdom.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #42 on:** August 22, 2003, 11:44:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
And anyone who can't see the tangible difference between a poster with the Ten Commandments mounted on a courtroom wall and a 2.5 ton monolith celebrating it in the court's lobby needs a reality check.

There is an obvious "tangible difference," but it's not clear to me why that difference has any legal significance.

LoneStarBuckeye · « **Reply #43 on:** August 22, 2003, 11:50:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
The ignorance of the First Amendment displayed in this thread borders on astonishing.

And, just so we can clear up any "astonishing ignorance," let's just go ahead and quote the First Amendment in its entirety:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wow! Now that I see the whole thing there in black and white, it is perfectly obvious that displaying the Ten Commandments in a Federal Courthouse violates the prohibition against Congress making laws respecting the establishment of religion. Silly me.

Eagler · « **Reply #44 on:** August 22, 2003, 11:59:27 AM »

just wondering how many of the crowd who wants to see this display go are in favor of removing the practice of one swearing on a bible or to God in any court?

I think most if not all ... sad